MEMBERS LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD CHAIRPERSON ALAN GERSHEL
VICE-CHAIRPERSON REV. DR. LOUIS J. PRUES SECRETARY PETER A. SMIT LINDA M. ORLANS
JASON M. TURKISH ANDREAS SIDIROPOULOS, MD KATIE STANLEY TISH VINCENT
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
333 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1700 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3147 PHONE: 313-963-5553
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR — KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL — SHERRY MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR —
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER — JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY —
www.adbmich.org
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)
Case No. 23-12-GA Notice Issued: April 20, 2023 Jerard M. Scanland, P 74992, Southgate, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #10
Reprimand, effective April 19, 2023 Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The parties’ stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he committed professional misconduct during his representation of three clients in their separate and unrelated real estate/probate and civil matters, as set forth in a three-count formal complaint filed by the Grievance Administrator.
Based on respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to adequately keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (Counts Two and Three); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of MRPC 1.3 (Counts Two and Three); failed to return unearned fees, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (Count Two); and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of MRPC 5.5(a) (Count One). In addition, the panel found that respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) (Counts One, Two and Three); and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the court to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) (Counts One, Two and Three).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded, pay restitution totaling $5,998.34, and that he comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.00.